Next Article in Journal
Root Dilaceration and Dentigerous Cyst—A Cause–Effect Relationship?—“Case-Series Study”
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Single Control Loop Performance Monitoring Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Benchmarking of Load Forecasting Methods Using Residential Smart Meter Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Whitening CNN-Based Rotor System Fault Diagnosis Model Features
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

From DevOps to MLOps: Overview and Application to Electricity Market Forecasting

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(19), 9851; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199851
by Rakshith Subramanya 1,*, Seppo Sierla 1 and Valeriy Vyatkin 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(19), 9851; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199851
Submission received: 26 August 2022 / Revised: 19 September 2022 / Accepted: 27 September 2022 / Published: 30 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Disruptive Trends in Automation Technology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The explanation of the latest DevOps and MLOps and the introduction of the MLOps framework as a case study looks to be a good study.

My concern is that it's hard to find scientific research contributions. Sections 2 and 3 consist mostly of introductions of existing theories and techniques, and it might be difficult to find technical challenges and scientific contributions in Section 4, which is the main contribution of this paper.

Would it be possible to make the contents of Section 2 and 3 more compact?

In Conclusion Section, it is mentioned that generalizing pipeline structure is difficult, however there is no clear explanation as to why this is difficult. Moreover, it is hard to find an explanation of how Section 4 solved this difficulty. It would be a strong paper if you explain above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your review. Our response is in the attached word document.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written in English, but the DevOps subject is not new. Thus, the entire section 3.1 can be eliminated - there is no new information regarding DevOps practices. 

The novelty of the paper is not highlighted.

Figure 3 - Graphic representation of the feature branching strategy is not new, is adapted from 109, 110. This should be mention on the Figure 3 legend (if the section 3.1 remains). 

Figure 4 - Graphic representation of trunk-based versioning is not new, is adapted from 111, 112. This should be mention on the Figure 4 legend  (if the section 3.1 remains).

The sentence 'A common market structure in Europe and elsewhere is the hourly day-ahead market' (line 640) has no references. This is all the more surprising, as the work abounds with references.

Reproducibility of the result is an important technical issues of the ML systems  - line 445. But the paper did not explain how reproducibility issue is solved using the proposed MLOps. To be more specific, every time when a neural network is retrained, other results can be obtained. What are the proposed steps to solve this issue?

Regarding the references, nine pages of them seem a bit exaggerated. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your review. Our response is in the attached word document.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, they proposed overview and application to electricity market forecasting. The paper is well written. But there are some  drawbacks regarding the paper as follows: 

a)The abstract should be shortened and rewritten. It is mostly focused on the reason of the study. The authors should highlight the results and advantages of mentioned methods.

b) Why did you choose the ML models (ANN, SVM, KNN, and a Decision Tree)? Please explain it in the paper. 

c) What is the motivation of your paper?

d) Please extend the results by adding new experiments.

e) About the literature, each paper should clearly specify what is the proposed methodology, novelty, and results. 

f)Please state limitation (weaknesses) of the proposed approach (if any) in the conclusion section and future research direction should be elaborated in more detail.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your review. Our response is in the attached word document.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments have been addressed in the revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made the modifications suggested.

Back to TopTop